Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate.

[blazin_it_alwyz]

First of all, I did not write this. This is a recent blog article, that has gone up on a popular social site like digg, reddit. I haven't seen it on digg yet, but I am assuming it is going to be there eventually. And I am betting that if this article gets out to many people unchecked, we are going to lose some supporters....

http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/ron-paul-is-not-a-great-candidate-were-just-so-in-love-with-him-that-were-not-paying-attention

That is the article. Most of those things he is totally wrong on though, except maybe separation of church and state, that's about it though.

http://reddit.com/info/2oh4z/comments

That is the link to the comment section on reddit if you want to respond.

[noxagol]

How is this guy a Ron Paul supporter? He says all of the good things that Ron Paul is for are bad.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

First of all, I did not write this. This is a recent blog article, that has gone up on a popular social site like digg, reddit. I haven't seen it on digg yet, but I am assuming it is going to be there eventually. And I am betting that if this article gets out to many people unchecked, we are going to lose some supporters....

http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/ron-paul-is-not-a-great-candidate-were-just-so-in-love-with-him-that-were-not-paying-attention

That is the article. Most of those things he is totally wrong on though, except maybe separation of church and state, that's about it though.

http://reddit.com/info/2oh4z/comments

That is the link to the comment section on reddit if you want to respond.

He's a moron. He's taking Ron Paul's personal views and making it look like it reflects upon his political positions.

[Chester Copperpot]

First of all, I did not write this. This is a recent blog article, that has gone up on a popular social site like digg, reddit. I haven't seen it on digg yet, but I am assuming it is going to be there eventually. And I am betting that if this article gets out to many people unchecked, we are going to lose some supporters....

http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/ron-paul-is-not-a-great-candidate-were-just-so-in-love-with-him-that-were-not-paying-attention

That is the article. Most of those things he is totally wrong on though, except maybe separation of church and state, that's about it though.

http://reddit.com/info/2oh4z/comments

That is the link to the comment section on reddit if you want to respond.

First of all, there is no way in hell that the writer of that article is or ever was a Ron Paul supporter... This is an attempt at bullshit to get people to dislike Ron Paul...

Especially this part of the relgion thing: “The founding fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America

That is absolutely correct. The founding father did envision a Christian yet religiously tolerant America... Theres nothing wrong with that statement.

ANd the continued ramblings about getting rid of the FDA and Dept of education are more attempts at the same sort of bullshit.

the guy never supported Ron Paul and ill bet you dollars to donuts that this guy got paid by somebody to write that article. Attacks like this are becoming much more commonplace as Ron Paul's popularity continues to grow.. It is inevitable that this will happen..

[Kregener]

Any person who bashes Ron Paul is a crackhead leftist or a blathering neocon.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'd like to rub his face up against a cheese grader :p

[paulitics]

One of the most effective ways to discredit someone is to say I used to be a supporter, but here are the reasons he sucks. This was never a real supporter, just a poser

[blazin_it_alwyz]

Well the problem is, it is a very high rated article on reddit right now, you can only get on reddit, like digg, with votes from people. Many people voted this up, that is why I a posting it right now, he comes off like he is a supporter, but yeah he opposes most of what is the things to like Ron Paul for.

The problem is, a lot of people are taking this for true....This article has about 700 points, and that combines all the vote downs, so about 1000+ people voted this article up. That is why this is a problem....

[emilysdad]

That's BS.

I did see an older video today where Ron said he supported the death penalty. Can anybody point me in the direction where I can read why he has changed this position.

[Chester Copperpot]

As I thought.. that guy has Anti-ROn PAul blogs going back to May 2007... Hes full of shit... One of his cronies even posts that Libertarians are for slavery.. What a bunch of shit... Here's the rationale:

Libetarians say people have the right to life, and theyre all for private property rights - therefore there for the private property of peoples' lives - Slavery.

what asshole these ***** are,...

[WannaBfree]

Regarding this person's comments regarding the UN backed IPCC, they might have a look at this:

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+ Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

[Chester Copperpot]

One of the most effective ways to discredit someone is to say I used to be a supporter, but here are the reasons he sucks. This was never a real supporter, just a poser

BINGO!

[billm317]

partial rebuttal:
http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/ron-paul-wants-to-eliminate-what

[Chester Copperpot]

Well the problem is, it is a very high rated article on reddit right now, you can only get on reddit, like digg, with votes from people. Many people voted this up, that is why I a posting it right now, he comes off like he is a supporter, but yeah he opposes most of what is the things to like Ron Paul for.

The problem is, a lot of people are taking this for true....This article has about 700 points, and that combines all the vote downs, so about 1000+ people voted this article up. That is why this is a problem....

That may be so, then so be it... THere are always many lies during an election. and most of the moneyed-powers that be do not want Ron Paul in,, because hes not for them.. fuck em.. ID just leave some comments on how the guy is a total phony and go out and tell 10 more people about Ron Paul.

OR Rebut his points.. point for point - put it in a blog and then post the address in a comment on this guys blog.. fuckers

[JosephTheLibertarian]

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=46154232

his myspace page

[Chester Copperpot]

THE REBUTTAL HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE


HERE YOU GO

http://lidixmang.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-paul-flaws-rebuttal.html

[Pizza God]

There are one issue people out there. The war is Iraq is one of them.

[LibertyEagle]

Note:

The guy has a live traffic feed on his home page. Do not link to this article from here, or it will show up from whence you came. Cut and paste time.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=46154232

look at his face ha

[zbus12]

That's BS.

I did see an older video today where Ron said he supported the death penalty. Can anybody point me in the direction where I can read why he has changed this position.
Ron Paul's position is that the death penalty should not be controlled or sentenced through Federal courts and left up to the lawmakers of the individual states to handle. I think that is where he against the death penalty, at the Federal level. But as a Protestant, He is a bible believing Christian, and if it be a biblical view, he would support it as a just punishment that fits the crime of murder.

Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man."

[spiteface]

Um, I don't understand. Isn't this a list of reasons to vote FOR Ron Paul?? :confused:

[LibertyEagle]

Um, I don't understand. Isn't this a list of reasons to vote FOR Ron Paul?? :confused:

Yes. The guy sounds like a socialist to me. He can't see how anything could possibly happen without big government doing it.

[Lord Xar]

Well, apparently he has been around.. SO, lets find out who he supports - really, and get an article like that going....

I think we should start waging war back. Lets start creating bloggs, digging them while tearing a new ass for the opposition -- especially obama, hilllary, ghouliani, thompson etc...

This is a smart move on this guys part... and I think, or I am actually sure - we can do the same exact thing against him... serves him right..

SO, lets attack back.

[SpicyItalian739]

As a proud atheist, I'd VERY offended by this idiot's suppositions.

One of the reasons I respect Ron Paul so much is because he is very honest about the extent of his faith - he LIVES as a Christian unlike all of the hypochristians in government (and half of the clergy) - but he would NEVER impose his faith on others. He just derives the values of individual freedom from the creator, call him what you will.

Now as an atheist, I have NO PROBLEM with people peacefully celebrating their religious beliefs as long as they don't force me to if I chose not to. Let me elaborate - I have no issue with God on my (valueless paper) money, no issue with the 10 Commandments in courthouses, no issue with the nativity in local town squares. Why are people so scared of Christianity?

********************************************

Now for the important details of this idiot's argument against Ron Paul's statements: That this country was not created as a Christian nation.

NEWSFLASH: It certainly was! Again, even as an atheist... there is no denying this.

Apparently this guy's federally-funded public education did him NO GOOD, since he failed recognize the vast importance of Neoclassicism in the shaping of our Republic. Yes, Neoclassicism... the period where artists, sculptors, and philosophers borrowed aspects from ancient Greco-Roman arts and philosophies and filtered them through CHRISTIAN IDEALS!!!!!!

Does this guy know anything of the fore-bearers that inspired the Founding Fathers? Does he realize that Jefferson disliked the MEN that ran the churches, and not the ideology itself? It seems like he took all of these quotes directly from wikipedia, but he's never read anything else that Jefferson ever wrote!

[murrayrothbard]

So how large a chunk of RP's 'supporters' are really just public skool socialists that jumped on the bandwagon because it was cool?

[ForLibertyFight]

# He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA
You think that food you’re eating is safe? Well, he doesn’t think that’s the role of the federal government to help you with that. Leave it up to someone else. He things some community groups will spring up and organize to help us fill the void. In the meantime, however, there will be no standard for determining whether something is safe to consume or not.

Who the hell is going to check consumer reports before buying food and drugs? Does he not see how easily this will be exploited with ill effects?. This is precisely the type of policy that will allow the powerful and immoral to stomp all over those who are less educated.
===============================================
Ron Paul is a Libertarian and I consider myself a Libertarian also but I do really believe that SOME agencies should not be abolished. FDA in my opinion is one of them.

[Shellshock1918]

The author's a moron and apparently can't think things through. Paul isn't flawed, this man just disagrees with his views.

[Severius]

It's obvious this guys isn't really a supporter of Paul. Everything he complained about is something we already know and support. We know he doesn't want federally funded education, neither do i. (I btw am a college student.) His quote on RP's view on the separation of church and state I completely agree with. The founding fathers were religious, In our Deceleration of Independence sites that our rights come from our Creator. RP does not however want a State mandated church, he simply wants the State to stop oppressing the freedom of religious expression. There's other logical and analytical flaws in this piece I'm just too tired to go through them all. I know you guys can spot them too.

[SpicyItalian739]

Nobody will need federally funded education when they don't have to pay an income tax anymore ;)

[murrayrothbard]

# He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA
You think that food you’re eating is safe? Well, he doesn’t think that’s the role of the federal government to help you with that. Leave it up to someone else. He things some community groups will spring up and organize to help us fill the void. In the meantime, however, there will be no standard for determining whether something is safe to consume or not.

Who the hell is going to check consumer reports before buying food and drugs? Does he not see how easily this will be exploited with ill effects?. This is precisely the type of policy that will allow the powerful and immoral to stomp all over those who are less educated.
===============================================
Ron Paul is a Libertarian and I consider myself a Libertarian also but I do really believe that SOME agencies should not be abolished. FDA in my opinion is one of them.

Umm how could killing off your customer base on purpose possibly be good for business?

The result of the FDA is exactly the opposite of its intended purpose. Many people are quick to assume a medicine is 'safe' because some bureaucrat but his stamp on it. Some people are prevented by force from taking medications that they want to because another bureaucrat refuses to put his stamp on it and are worse off. Some companies can crush competitors by lobbying the FDA not to approve competing treatments. The FDA serves to restrict choice in health thereby artificially decreasing the supply of said treatments, which must ultimately lead to higher prices for the consumers. Good for pill companies. Bad for consumers. End the FDA yesterday!


Man if i wanted someone telling what was ok, and what was not, and then FORCING me to do what they say, I would still live with my parents..:rolleyes:

[nexalacer]

This guys arguments are the same shit you hear on DailyKOS. Dude is a statist, plain and simple.

[rodent]

First of all, I did not write this. This is a recent blog article, that has gone up on a popular social site like digg, reddit. I haven't seen it on digg yet, but I am assuming it is going to be there eventually. And I am betting that if this article gets out to many people unchecked, we are going to lose some supporters....

http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/ron-paul-is-not-a-great-candidate-were-just-so-in-love-with-him-that-were-not-paying-attention

That is the article. Most of those things he is totally wrong on though, except maybe separation of church and state, that's about it though.

http://reddit.com/info/2oh4z/comments

That is the link to the comment section on reddit if you want to respond.

That guy is retarded.

I feel like all these people are just sorely lacking in understanding of economics and don't understand how liquidity issues in a non-free market caused the great depression. The New Deal did nothing for us but put us all on the wrong path.

I'm getting so disgusted with how people think in this country.

[jmarinara]

Pathetic. LEt's take the "serious flaws" one by one, shall we?

He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

Good. Neither did the founders. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says this or even implies it. Thomas Jefferson said it in a letter to some babtists in Virginia to show his support for a Virginia law allowing them to set up a church. He agreed with Virginia that church should influence government, but government shouldn't influence church.

He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education

I'm so happy I want to cry. The founders didn't believe in Public Education at all, federally supported not withstanding. The constitution doesn't authorize public education. Period.

Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans

Awwwwwwwww. College students don't get to suck up my tax money to get art history degrees in communist public universities. Seriously, God forbid someone actually work and put themselves through school . . . cry me a river. Does this guy even understand Ron Paul's basic ideas?

He’s Not For National Health Care

AND I THANK THE LORD JESUS FOR THAT!!!!!! Finally, someone who thinks that turning health care over to a government that can't even seem to run a meeting properly is a bad idea. Not to mention RP is a doctor and ought to speak with authority on this issue.

He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA

Not sure if this one is actually true or not, but so what if he does? They aren't really doing a good job at what they do anyway. Lead paint on toys, bacteria in food approved by the FDA (no one ever brings up that angle). Please, I'm happy to see this giant waste of my money go away. And for the record, I hope Paul starts with the EPA. Speaking of which . . .

No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantFooCorp Does Something Wrong, Sue Them

Tell me folks. . .honestly, what has the EPA done to improve your life?

He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

The chief reason I support the man. I would love to see this happen. I think abortionists should be jailed for their crimes. Overturning RvW and ending America's holocaust would be a wonderful thing, and the greatest day America has seen in 100 years.

He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

Maybe because it's, uhhh, not???

The bottomline, this guy is a Liberal Socialist who has nothing in common WHATSOEVER with Dr. Paul. Ignore him.

[jmarinara]

Any person who bashes Ron Paul is a crackhead leftist or a blathering neocon.


A sermon in a sentence . . . *smirk*

[jmarinara]

As a proud atheist, I'd VERY offended by this idiot's suppositions.

One of the reasons I respect Ron Paul so much is because he is very honest about the extent of his faith - he LIVES as a Christian unlike all of the hypochristians in government (and half of the clergy) - but he would NEVER impose his faith on others. He just derives the values of individual freedom from the creator, call him what you will.

Now as an atheist, I have NO PROBLEM with people peacefully celebrating their religious beliefs as long as they don't force me to if I chose not to. Let me elaborate - I have no issue with God on my (valueless paper) money, no issue with the 10 Commandments in courthouses, no issue with the nativity in local town squares. Why are people so scared of Christianity?

********************************************

Now for the important details of this idiot's argument against Ron Paul's statements: That this country was not created as a Christian nation.

NEWSFLASH: It certainly was! Again, even as an atheist... there is no denying this.

Apparently this guy's federally-funded public education did him NO GOOD, since he failed recognize the vast importance of Neoclassicism in the shaping of our Republic. Yes, Neoclassicism... the period where artists, sculptors, and philosophers borrowed aspects from ancient Greco-Roman arts and philosophies and filtered them through CHRISTIAN IDEALS!!!!!!

Does this guy know anything of the fore-bearers that inspired the Founding Fathers? Does he realize that Jefferson disliked the MEN that ran the churches, and not the ideology itself? It seems like he took all of these quotes directly from wikipedia, but he's never read anything else that Jefferson ever wrote!

Dude, from a Christian (me) to an athiest (you) that was one awesome post!!!!

I applaud your open mind and correct view of history. Way to go my friend, you are truly one of a kind.

[brandon]

Whoa you all need to chill out. You are all taking the same stance as the people you claim to be against. Why is everyone in the "you are with us, or against us" mindset. That is what got us into this mess we are in to begin with.

Criticisms of Paul are very much needed. We cant have 100% faith in someone without ever questioning things. Wake up people, dont mindlessely follow.

I agree with the guy who wrote this article on several of his points. I still support Ron Paul though. Pleaese try not to be so shortsighted. Look at things objectively.

[brandon]

In my opinion, Paul is far from the perfect candidate. But he is thes best option we have now. Getting Paul into office is one giant step in the right direction, then maybe we can do even better in the following elections...

[jmarinara]

I agree with the guy who wrote this article on several of his points. I still support Ron Paul though. Pleaese try not to be so shortsighted. Look at things objectively.

Are we talking about the same Ron Paul here?? We're all refering to the congressman from Texas who's whippin' butt in every single straw poll and is going to be president in 2009. Same guy?

Ok. . . then please tell me what point the guy made that any Ron Paul supporter would even consider a good point? We SHOULD have national health care? We SHOULD have a department of Education??

[brandon]

I cant believe you all would call him an idiot jsut because he is disagreeing with some of pauls stances. Wether he is right or not, he is obviously not an idiot. He can write well and is very coherent. Please try to have an open mind people. Dont stifle and degrade others opinions like this just because they differ from yours.

[brandon]

Are we talking about the same Ron Paul here?? We're all refering to the congressman from Texas who's whippin' butt in every single straw poll and is going to be president in 2009. Same guy?

Ok. . . then please tell me what point the guy made that any Ron Paul supporter would even consider a good point? We SHOULD have national health care? We SHOULD have a department of Education??

He denies global warming and is extremely pro-life (which is very hypocritical for a libertarian)

He also doesnt have the best understanding of seperating church and state. he voted that prayer should be aloud in public schools.

And although i dont support the dep. of education, you cant deny that right now it does play an important job in giving poor people the little bit of education they get. Without the department, will the free market even things out? not entirely.

[spiteface]

Precisely. And this is not even close to radical. It's a basic understanding of the "freedom message".


Umm how could killing off your customer base on purpose possibly be good for business?

The result of the FDA is exactly the opposite of its intended purpose. Many people are quick to assume a medicine is 'safe' because some bureaucrat but his stamp on it. Some people are prevented by force from taking medications that they want to because another bureaucrat refuses to put his stamp on it and are worse off. Some companies can crush competitors by lobbying the FDA not to approve competing treatments. The FDA serves to restrict choice in health thereby artificially decreasing the supply of said treatments, which must ultimately lead to higher prices for the consumers. Good for pill companies. Bad for consumers. End the FDA yesterday!


Man if i wanted someone telling what was ok, and what was not, and then FORCING me to do what they say, I would still live with my parents..:rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'd like to seriously flaw that guy's face.... oops, looks like someone beat me to it. see his myspace page? ha.. that guy is a fat ass

[QWE]

you guys are so quick to attack this guy. This is NOT the way to get voters! Those are real concerns of many potential RP supporters! The best would be to respectfully respond to this and logically show why Ron Paul is right.

But honestly, I completely disagree with the Christian crap. Ron Paul and anyone else has the right to be Christian and serve the American people, but there is something called the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment! Creating a Christian state in any way, shape or form is an obvious violation of it. There is NOTHING in the constitution that supports Ron Paul's claim - and his claim that the Founders would support that is shaky at best!
Any true libertarian would see that both Church and State are better off when separated! This does NOT mean prevent the two from intersecting, this means prevent the two from supporting the other. I'd rather have a secular (read: no religion, agnostic, NOT atheist) state than a government that ends up like Israel or Iran (except with a Christian emphasis). The people should be free to exercise religion and the government should not be endorsing religion (any religion or religion in general) ESPECIALLY not at the federal level.

[brandon]

you guys are so quick to attack this guy. This is NOT the way to get voters! Those are real concerns of many potential RP supporters! The best would be to respectfully respond to this and logically show why Ron Paul is right.

But honestly, I completely disagree with the Christian crap. Ron Paul and anyone else has the right to be Christian and serve the American people, but there is something called the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment! Creating a Christian state in any way, shape or form is an obvious violation of it. There is NOTHING in the constitution that supports Ron Paul's claim - and his claim that the Founders would support that is shaky at best!
Any true libertarian would see that both Church and State are better off when separated! This does NOT mean prevent the two from intersecting, this means prevent the two from supporting the other. I'd rather have a secular (read: no religion, agnostic, NOT atheist) state than a government that ends up like Israel or Iran (except with a Christian emphasis). The people should be free to exercise religion and the government should not be endorsing religion (any religion or religion in general) ESPECIALLY not at the federal level.


Thank god,someone making sence and being reasonable.

I worry some people here are just becomming ron paul sheep.

Think for yourselves people. Ron paul is only a mortal, and all mortals have flaws.

Some paul supporters started a satire page of fred thompson (www.fredthompson.com). On the forums they parody the neocons by attacking anyone who doesnt 100% agree with them. Sadly many people here are being exactly like that, but for real

[Kregener]

A simple Google search and 30 minutes of reading would show any THINKING person why Ron Paul is right.

[Ron Paul Fan]

you guys are so quick to attack this guy. This is NOT the way to get voters! Those are real concerns of many potential RP supporters! The best would be to respectfully respond to this and logically show why Ron Paul is right.


I agree with this. Calling him retarded or a fatass is a horrible way to try and win an argument and win supporters. I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, but I still support him. I hope that you wouldn't start calling me names as well. The best way to deal with this guy is to provide him with facts and reasons why Ron Paul's way would work better than what we have now.

[brandon]

A simple Google search and 30 minutes of reading would show any THINKING person why Ron Paul is right.

cmon man...you are making bill o'reilly type arguments. There is no logic in what you just said. A person can very easily think and conclude that ron paul is wrong.

I think RP is right on most issues, but not all.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I am free to attack everyone and anyone.. the consequences in doing so is another story

[bbachtung]

Despite being an avid atheist, I have no problem with Ron Paul's correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

You have to remember that the Bill of Rights was only supposed to apply against the federal government, which was supposed to be very small, with powers limited to those enumerated in the Constitution (most are found in Article I, section 8), so any religious references made by federal officials would be nearly meaningless. It is especially clear that the 1st Amendment was intended to apply ONLY to the federal government because it starts with the word "Congress" ("Congress shall make no law . . . ").

It was only with the rise and misinterpration of the 14th Amendment that led to the "incorporation" of certain parts of the Bill of Rights against the states and local governments (one notable exception to this is -- of course -- the 2nd Amendment because everyone knows that guns are evil and they don't really deserve protection).

Misusing the Constitution is wrong, and Dr. Paul is right to stand up against applications of the 1st Amendment against non-federal actions. We have state constitutions for a reason: to protect us from overreaching state governments, just as the federal constitution is supposed to protect us from an overreaching federal government.

Look on the bright side, with a Ron Paul presidency, the federal government will have very little to do, and deciding what kind of decoration Salt Lake City's public square can have around Christmas will no longer be the job of the federal courts. Small is beautiful; let's return power to the states.

As usual, Ron Paul put it (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=203) more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could:



The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression.

[brandon]

thanks for that clarification bbach. That is a wonderful counter argument. Much better then calling the guy who wrote the article an idiot or a fat ass.

[jmunjr]

First of all, there is no way in hell that the writer of that article is or ever was a Ron Paul supporter... This is an attempt at bullshit to get people to dislike Ron Paul...


I've been a big time Ron Paul supporter but the guys has some valid points. Not all of them are valid though. I too have some serious unanswered or insufficiently answered questions about Paul.

A lot of Constitutional Amendments should have been passed giving the federal government the power to do certain things instead of the huge bureaucracy of departments that were put in place.

If Paul gets into power and downsizes the government there will be a lot of holes in areas of govt that our nation has gotten used to. Most of them won't need to be filled, but many will.

Paul just brushes these off with the idea that privatization will take care of the problem. Keep in mind though that abuses by industry and corporations and other "private" organizations in the 19th and early to mid 20th centuries are what led to a lot of new regulations, laws, and the departments in the first place to protect the people and consumers. Certainly some were created due to abuses and corruption.

Sure, in many cases mismanagement by the entities assigned to enforcing these laws created a bigger problem, but removing them altogether opens the door for a repeat of abuses. This includes the possibility of a less safe food supply, employment abuses such as child and excessive labor, poor wages, extreme educational inequities, just to name a few.

I am for downsizing the government but not necessarily for eliminating key components of it completely. And yeah the above ones mentioned are debatable as to their importance but you get my point.

Times have changed so much in the past 50 to 100 years that changes to the Constitution were necessary to adapt, but these didn't happen. Instead the federal gov't bypassed the process and built new agencies and administrations without approval of the states to cope with the supposed problems. Get rid of these agencies and the problems return.

And to reiterate, I have been a big supporter of Paul for a long long time, but sometimes he just doesn't have answers that suffice when dealing with some of the changes he proposes.

PS - and also where does it state specifically about the separation of church and state? The Constitution just says "Congress shall write no law..." though many of our founders alluded to it in their own writings..

[brandon]

Umm how could killing off your customer base on purpose possibly be good for business?


Obviously it wouldn't be good for business, but the market takes time to regulate itself. People would have to die first, and then the company would lose business, as opposed to have some type of regulation outside the market to prevent this form happening in the first place.

Additionally, theree are many industries who are already killing there customers on purpose such as tobacco and fast food.


no i dont think government regulation is the answer to everything, but there are two sides to this argument.

[QWE]

Despite being an avid atheist, I have no problem with Ron Paul's correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

You have to remember that the Bill of Rights was only supposed to apply against the federal government, which was supposed to be very small, with powers limited to those enumerated in the Constitution (most are found in Article I, section 8), so any religious references made by federal officials would be nearly meaningless. It is especially clear that the 1st Amendment was intended to apply ONLY to the federal government because it starts with the word "Congress" ("Congress shall make no law . . . ").

It was only with the rise and misinterpration of the 14th Amendment that led to the "incorporation" of certain parts of the Bill of Rights against the states and local governments (one notable exception to this is -- of course -- the 2nd Amendment because everyone knows that guns are evil and they don't really deserve protection).

Misusing the Constitution is wrong, and Dr. Paul is right to stand up against applications of the 1st Amendment against non-federal actions. We have state constitutions for a reason: to protect us from overreaching state governments, just as the federal constitution is supposed to protect us from an overreaching federal government.

Look on the bright side, with a Ron Paul presidency, the federal government will have very little to do, and deciding what kind of decoration Salt Lake City's public square can have around Christmas will no longer be the job of the federal courts. Small is beautiful; let's return power to the states.

As usual, Ron Paul put it (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=203) more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could:


I agree that it wouldn't be so bad with Paul's interpretation, but I believe it would be better if the two were separate.

Also, I don't understand how the 14th amendment is misinterpreted by the courts. It seems fairly obvious to me that the due process clause incorporates those rights to the states (and the 2nd amendment isn't due process, in my opinion, although I could see how it might be considered one).

I understand what Ron Paul's view is - but his view is not outlined in the Constitution, he only believes in the ability for the federal government to conduct itself in such a way. May I ask, why does he think it is BETTER to have Christian values in the government, when (in his view) constitutionally it is only allowed to do so, not mandated. The government has a choice to not entangle itself with religion at all - why not do that? Why is that a bad thing? That's the main problem I have.

[bbachtung]

I agree that it wouldn't be so bad with Paul's interpretation, but I believe it would be better if the two were separate.

Also, I don't understand how the 14th amendment is misinterpreted by the courts. It seems fairly obvious to me that the due process clause incorporates those rights to the states (and the 2nd amendment isn't due process, in my opinion, although I could see how it might be considered one).

I understand what Ron Paul's view is - but his view is not outlined in the Constitution, he only believes in the ability for the federal government to conduct itself in such a way. May I ask, why does he think it is BETTER to have Christian values in the government, when (in his view) constitutionally it is only allowed to do so, not mandated. The government has a choice to not entangle itself with religion at all - why not do that? Why is that a bad thing? That's the main problem I have.

What about the 1st Amendment makes it a "due process" right?

I could see that argument if the courts had stuck to those rights that relate to procedures (i.e., right against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings, right to counsel, etc.), but certainly not with regard to free speech and free exercise of religion portions of the 1st Amendment (although the right to petition for redress of grievances might be a procedural right).